Hydromorphology – major results and conclusions from the STAR project

The major results and conclusions of the two papers in the hydromorphology section of the Hydrobiologia special issue on the EU STAR project are summarised. Several key findings have emerged from this research. Firstly, the hydromorphological characteristics of rivers between different geographical regions of Europe were found to vary considerably with rivers in each region possessing distinctive hydromorphological characteristics. Secondly, the hydromorphological attributes that most strongly influence two existing hydromorphological indices (the Habitat Quality Assessment and the Habitat Modification Score) were identified and attention was drawn to the accurate definition and recording of these attributes in field surveys and training courses. Thirdly, links between hydromorphological characteristics and macroinvertebrate quality indices were investigated. Two types of bank modification (resectioning and reinforcement) were significantly correlated with two biotic indices (EPT taxa and MTS), while channel modifications were negatively correlated with ASPT. While biotic indices were often strongly correlated with Habitat Quality Assessment they were less strongly related to Habitat Modification Score suggesting that physical habitat diversity may be more important in determining macroinvertebrate community structure than morphological alteration. The papers in this section provide important underpinning research for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. In both papers suggestions are made for further research on the hydromorphology of European rivers.     

Restoration of the Upper Main and Rodach rivers - The success and its measurement

Large-scale restoration of streams and rivers is a mandatory prerequisite for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) to reach good ecological status of water bodies. This contribution analyzes the success of the largest river restoration in Germany at the Upper Main. Sections with a length of more than 18 km were restored between 1990 and 2008, including re-connection of former oxbow-lakes, multiple-channelling, and establishment of wide riparian buffer zones.Measuring the success of restoration by means of a multimetric assessment system, we found a clear success of restoration indicated by the status of hydromorphology and by the biological parameters, including macroinvertebrates, fishes, and macrophytes. Unlike non-restored reaches, the restored reaches attained a good ecological status. As such, the restoration of the Upper Main is shown to be a pilot project for the implementation of the WFD on a large scale.     

Assessment of sources of uncertainty in macrophyte surveys and the consequences for river classification

The application of macrophytes in freshwater monitoring is still relatively limited and studies on their intercalibration and sources of variation are required. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare selected indices and metrics based on macrophytes and to quantify their variability. During the STAR project, several aspects influencing uncertainty in estimation of the ecological quality of river were assessed. Results showed that several metrics based on the indicative value of plant species can be used in evaluation of the ecological status of rivers. Among estimated sources of variance in metric values the inter-surveyor differences had the lowest effect and slightly stronger were the influences of temporal variation (years and seasons) and shading. The impact of habitat modification was the most important factor. Analysis showed that some of macrophyte-based metrics (notably MTR and IBMR) are of sufficient precision in terms of sampling uncertainty, that they could be useful for estimating the ecological status of rivers in accordance with the aims of the Water Framework Directive.     

Relationships among biological elements (macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and ichthyofauna) for different core river types across Europe at two different spatial scales

The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in correlations among Biological Elements and environmental parameters for different river types, analysed at two different spatial scales. A total of 82 sites, with at least good ecological status, were sampled across Europe, representing three core river types: Mountain rivers (26 sites); Lowland rivers (29 sites) and Mediterranean rivers (17 sites). At each site samples of macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fishes were taken during spring, following the methodological procedures established by the European STAR project. Environmental parameters were also recorded, based on a site protocol developed by the European projects AQEM and STAR. Environmental parameters were divided into three categories: aquatic habitats (mesohabitat scale), global features (reach scale) and obligatory typology parameters of Water Framework Directive (WFD) (geographical scale). Data were analysed to evaluate at the two scales, first, relationships among biological elements, and second, relationships between biological elements and environmental parameters. Within each river type, correlation matrices (Bray–Curtis distance) were calculated separately for each biological element and for each category of environmental parameters. All biological elements were correlated (p<0.01) to the larger spatial scale: macrophytes and macroinvertebrates are more correlated in lowland and mountain rivers, while in Mediterranean rivers, fish and macrophytes presented higher correlations. These links tend to be consistent for different spatial scales, except if they are weak on a larger regional scale, obligatory parameters of WFD were, in most cases, significantly correlated with the three biological communities (p<0.05). Results at different spatial scales supported the hierarchical theory of river formation. Reach and mesohabitat environmental parameters tend to explain aquatic communities at a lower spatial scale, while geographical parameters tend to explain the communities at a major spatial scale.     

Uncertainty in Diatom Assessment: Sampling, Identification and Counting Variation

Despite the widespread application of periphytic diatoms to water quality assessment at a regional level, there is no standard European sampling protocol or associated assessment metrics. Furthermore, relatively little is known about the uncertainty in the results of such assessments. One of the objectives of the European project for the Standardisation of River Classifications (STAR) is to improve and standardise diatom assessment methods. An extensive diatom ring test, together with an audit of the project results, provided a better understanding and quantification of the uncertainty in quality assessment of running waters using diatoms. The variation in multimetric analysis shows that the choice of site and substrate for sampling, the inter-operator differences in diatom taxonomy and the counting techniques are the primary sources of uncertainty. To some extent, this variation also reveals the robustness of specific metrics in relation to the sources of uncertainty. Of the three most common substrate types tested (stone, macrophyte and sediment), macrophytes emerge as the most preferred substrate for diatom sampling when performing multimetric water quality assessment.     

The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: a comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) has led to an increase in hydromorphological restoration attempts in European rivers, but data on the ecological responses of rivers to these restoration attempts are scarce. We investigated the effects of 24 hydromorphological river restoration projects in Germany. We compared hydromorphological parameters and biological diversity of macroinvertebrates, fish, and macrophytes in restored reaches to nearby unrestored sections. We applied, for the first time, the WFD to assess the results of these restoration projects. While hydromorphology changed significantly in the restored sections, differences between restored and unrestored sections in terms of biological parameters were lower. Positive restoration effects were observed for fish (11 of 24 cases) only. Based on the synthesis of results from the different organism groups, only one of the 24 restored sections reached a “good” Ecological Quality Class as demanded by the WFD. Our results indicate that stressors other than hydromorphological degradation still affect the biota in restored sections. We emphasize the need for advanced restoration strategies based on catchment analyses considering water pollution, source populations, and dispersal capacities of sensitive species, and recommend the inclusion of additional parameters, including societal and stakeholder perspectives, in assessing the initial success of restoration projects.     

Macrophytes and diatoms – major results and conclusions from the STAR project

The interactions between sensitivity and variability of macrophyte and diatom communities were evaluated as a research support of methodologies required by the Water Framework Directive. Slope and shading were identified as additional typological parameters improving links between unimpacted macrophyte communities and running water types. Two other studies demonstrated indication value of macrophytes for assessment of nutrient enrichment and hydromorphological degradation. The special exercises were realized within the STAR project to evaluate sources of variability/uncertainty in assessment methods based on macrophytes and diatoms. Sampling period and shading of the site were found as major factors affecting variability in macrophyte assessment results. Uncertainty of diatom assessment is predominantly associated with selection of site, substrate type and taxonomic identification. Further extension of indication systems and definition of macrophyte/diatom-specific typology of running waters are considered as the main aims of subsequent investigations.     

REBECCA databases: experiences from compilation and analyses of monitoring data from 5,000 lakes in 20 European countries

Chemical and biological data from more than 5,000 lakes in 20 European countries have been compiled into databases within the EU project REBECCA. The project’s purpose was to provide scientific support for implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The databases contain the biological elements phytoplankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish, together with relevant chemistry data and station information. The common database strategy has enabled project partners to perform analyses of chemical–biological relationships and to describe reference conditions for large geographic regions in Europe. This strategy has obvious benefits compared with single-country analyses: results will be more representative for larger European regions, and the statistical power and precision will be larger. The high number of samples within some regions has also enabled analysis of type-specific relationships for several lake types. These results are essential for the intercalibration of ecological assessment systems for lakes, as required by the WFD. However, the common database approach has also involved costs and limitations. The data process has been resource-demanding, and the requirements for a flexible database structure have made it less user-friendly for project partners. Moreover, there are considerable heterogeneities among datasets from different countries regarding sampling methods and taxonomic precision; this may reduce comparability of the data and increase the uncertainty of the results. This article gives an overview of the contents and functions of the REBECCA Lakes databases, and of our experiences from constructing and using the databases. We conclude with recommendations for compilation of environmental data for future international projects.     

Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods – major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS

The STAR project’s extensive replicated sampling programmes have provided the first ever quantitative comparative studies of the susceptibility of a wide range of national macroinvertebrate sampling methods and taxonomic metrics to uncertainty resulting from the effects of field sampling variability and subsequent sub-sampling and laboratory (or bank-side) procedures and protocols. We summarise six STAR project papers examining various aspects of the potential sources of uncertainty in the observed fauna and observed metric values. The use of new simulation software STARBUGS (STAR Bioassessment Uncertainty Software System) to incorporate the effects of these potential errors into quantitative assessments of the uncertainty in assigning water bodies to WFD ecological status classes is discussed.     

Estimates and comparisons of the effects of sampling variation using ‘national’ macroinvertebrate sampling protocols on the precision of metrics used to assess ecological status

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Union requires all member countries to provide information on the level of confidence and precision of results in their river monitoring programmes to assess the ecological status class of river sites. As part of the European Union project STAR, the overall effects of sampling variation for a wide range of commonly used metrics and sampling methods were assessed. Replicate samples were taken in each of two seasons at 2–6 sites of varying ecological status class within each of 18 stream types spread over 12 countries, using both the STAR-AQEM method and a national sampling method or, where unavailable, the RIVPACS sampling protocol. The sampling precision of a combination of sampling method and metric was estimated by expressing the replicate sampling variance as a percentage P_samp of the total variance in metric values with a stream type; low values of P_samp indicate high precision. Most metrics had percentage sampling variances less than 20% for all or most stream types and methods. Most national methods including RIVPACS had sampling precisions at least as good as those for the STAR-AQEM method as used in their country at the same sites; the main exceptions were the national methods used in Latvia and Sweden. The national methods used in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Poland and the RIVPACS method used in the UK and Austria all had percentage sampling variances of less than 10% for the majority of metrics assessed. In contrast, none of the metrics had percentage sampling variances less than 10% when based on either the Italian (IBE) method, which used bank-side sorting, or the Latvian national method which identifies only a limited set of taxa. P_samp was lowest on average for the two stream types sampled in the Czech Republic using either the PERLA national method or the STAR-AQEM method. Averaged over all stream types and methods, the three Saprobic-based metrics had the lowest average percentage sampling variances (3–6%) amongst the 26 metrics assessed. These estimates of sampling standard deviation can be used to help assess the uncertainty in single or multi-metric systems for estimating site ecological status using the general STAR Bioassessment Guidance Software (STARBUGS) developed within the STAR project.     

Biological quality metrics: their variability and appropriate scale for assessing streams

The concept of spatial scale is at the research frontier in ecology, and although focus has been placed on trying to determine the role of spatial scale in structuring communities, there still is a further need to standardize which organism groups are to be used at which scale and under which circumstances in environmental assessment. This paper contributes to the understanding of the variability at different spatial scales (reach, stream, river basin) of metrics characterizing communities of different biological quality elements (macrophytes, fishes, macroinvertebrates and benthic diatoms) as defined by the Water Framework Directive. For this purpose, high-quality reaches from medium-sized lowland streams of Latvia, Ecoregion 15 (Baltic) were sampled using a nested hierarchical sampling design: (river basin → stream → reach). The variability of metrics within the different groups of biological quality elements confirmed that large-bodied organisms (macrophytes and fish) were less variable than small-bodied organisms (macroinvertebrates and benthic diatoms) at reach, stream and river basin scales. Single metrics of biological quality elements had the largest variation at the reach scale compared with stream and basin scales. There were no significant correlations between biodiversity indices of the different organism groups. The correlation between diversity indices (Shannon’s and Simpson’s) of the biological quality elements (macrophytes, fish, benthic macroinvertebrates and benthic diatoms) and a number of measured environmental variables varied among the different organism groups. Relationships between diversity indices and environmental factors were established for all groups of biological quality elements. Our results showed that metrics of macrophytes and fish could be used for assessing ecological quality at the river basin scale, whereas metrics of macroinvertebrates and benthic diatoms were most appropriate at a smaller scale.     

Recommendations for sampling littoral diatoms in lakes for ecological status assessments

This review summarises the existing literature and outlines the theoretical basis for using standard methods for sampling diatoms from rivers to sample littoral diatoms and other phytobenthos from standing waters. The European Union's Water Framework Directive has created a statutory obligation for EU Member States to monitor macrophytes and phytobenthos in lakes. Although there has been a considerable amount of work using phytobenthos (especially diatoms) to monitor river water quality in Europe, there are fewer studies on the use of phytobenthos for monitoring in lakes. European standard methods for sampling diatoms from rivers should be suitable, with only minor modifications, for sampling littoral diatoms from lakes and other standing water bodies. These recommendations should be applicable to all temperate regions.     

Intercalibration and comparison – major results and conclusions from the STAR project

The main results of the STAR project on the intercalibration of boundaries of European assessment systems and comparison between assessment methods are summarized here. The main findings are outlined in the context of the Water Framework Directive that requires reliable instructions to be set up on how to use and harmonise assessment systems and methods for European rivers. The main papers published on these subjects by STAR partners are reviewed, with focus on major questions addressed and approaches used for investigation. The need for broad coverage of geographic ranges and pressure gradients, together with the goal of providing outcomes appropriate to the effective application of the WFD are emphasized. Extensive datasets from a wide range of countries, stream types and sites and a large number of methods, metrics and approaches are compared and tested and various cross-cutting themes emerged. Among these, the value of the use of benchmarking systems for comparison and intercalibration is highlighted. Two ways of looking for comparability of assessment systems results were analyzed: a) by adopting identical sampling techniques across Europe and b) by harmonizing the classification results of the national assessment systems. In addition, the need, in the intercalibration process, for a proper definition of the criteria for reference conditions is underlined. This is because their imprecision now represents one of the major weaknesses of the whole intercalibration process. Direct and indirect approaches to intercalibration are considered and commented on for their potential use in distinct circumstances. Finally, the use common metrics for the intercalibration process, which make comparability across Europe valid, is tested and indeed encouraged.     

The WISER way of organising ecological data from European rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters

The implementation of the Water Framework Directive has required intense research in applied aquatic ecology in Europe, and thus created challenges for data management in international research projects. In the project Waterbodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery (WISER), biological and environmental data from rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters in 26 European countries were collated. More than one million records of biological observations were stored in the project’s central database, representing phytoplankton, macrophytes, macroalgae, angiosperms, phytobenthos, invertebrates and fish. The central database includes new data from the WISER field campaign in lakes and transitional/coastal waters during 2009–2010 (more than 6,000 biological samples from 58 waterbodies in 14 countries). The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the data collated within WISER, in order to facilitate future re-use of these data by other scientists. More specifically, the objectives are to (1) describe the data management in WISER, (2) describe the structure and content of the WISER central database and (3) share experiences and give recommendations for data management in large ecological research projects.     

Implications of the spatial variability of macroinvertebrate communities for monitoring of ephemeral lakes. An example from turloughs

Turloughs, ephemeral water bodies associated with karstified limestone, are an important habitat found in the West of Ireland. They are a priority habitat under the European Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and are groundwater-dependent habitats under the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC; WFD). Sampling to meet the objectives of either Directive requires discrimination of inherent natural variation from anthropogenically induced disturbances and accounting for both spatial and seasonal patterns of biotic distribution. This study reports within- (submerged grassland) and between-habitat (submerged and emergent grassland) variability of macroinvertebrate communities in six turloughs. Two different habitat types were sampled from two turloughs in April 2007, and further assessment of spatial pattern in commonly found submerged grassland habitat was determined from four additional turloughs in spring 2008. While cluster analysis and non-metric multidimensional scaling identified differences in macroinvertebrate community structures between habitats in one out of two turloughs, congruence of invertebrate communities was, nevertheless, greater within than among turloughs. Within-habitat variability of macroinvertebrate communities across sampling locations of submerged grassland habitat was sufficiently low so that samples collected at any location of a turlough can provide a reliable metric of the macroinvertebrate community of a turlough as a whole. A standardized submerged grassland sampling approach for routine turlough sampling is recommended as a pressure response method to fulfil the requirements of the WFD. For a comprehensive conservation assessment, however, as demanded under the EC Habitats Directive, we suggest a multi-habitat sampling approach to obtain a thorough assessment of turlough macroinvertebrate biodiversity.     

Efficient sampling methodologies for lake littoral invertebrates in compliance with the European Water Framework Directive

Lake shores are characterised by a high natural variability, which is increasingly threatened by a multitude of anthropogenic disturbances including morphological alterations to the littoral zone. The European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) calls for the assessment of lake ecological status by monitoring biological quality elements including benthic macroinvertebrates. To identify cost- and time-efficient sampling strategies for routine lake monitoring, we sampled littoral invertebrates in 32 lakes located in different geographical regions in Europe. We compared the efficiency of two sampling methodologies, defined as habitat-specific and pooled composite sampling protocols. Benthic samples were collected from unmodified and morphologically altered shorelines. Variability within macroinvertebrate communities did not differ significantly between sampling protocols across alteration types, lake types and geographical regions. Community composition showed no significant differences between field composite samples and artificially generated composite samples, and correlation coefficients between macroinvertebrate metrics calculated with both methods and a predefined morphological stressor index were similar. We conclude that proportional composite sampling represents a time- and cost-efficient method for routine lake monitoring as requested under the EU WFD, and may be applied across various European geographical regions.     

Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates

In the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) a typological framework is defined for assessing the ecological quality of water bodies in the future. The conditions in the Directive impose a strong demand for `new' assessment systems. During the AQEM project an assessment system was developed for European streams using macroinvertebrates. The aim of this study was to test if the typology suggested in the WFD is useful for developing an assessment system for macroinvertebrates in streams. In total 889 streams of 29 stream types were sampled in eight countries all over the major geographical gradients in Europe. These stream types fit the WFD typological demands and fit to the major European geographic regions (ecoregions). The sites included gradients from reference conditions (for the definition see Nijboer et al., 2004) to sites with bad ecological quality. Despite standardisation there were large differences between the participating countries concerning the number of taxa, the number of specimens and the taxonomic resolution. The data, including macroinvertebrates and environmental variables were analysed by using Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA). The observed macroinvertebrate distribution largely supported the WFD typological criteria. This means that the major macroinvertebrate distribution patterns in European streams follow climatological and geomorphological conditions and are well distinguished in terms of stream types. Furthermore, it was shown that large scale factors affected the macroinvertebrate distribution even on a very fine scale. Most explanatory variables seemed to be scale independent. Even at a fine scale major factors concerning geology, geomorphology and hydrology added to the species occurrences. Within stream types morphology together with physico-chemistry best explained the macroinvertebrates distribution. In conclusion, the WFD typology is useful for an assessment system for streams using macroinvertebrates. The large scale factors were indeed the variables that explained most of the variation in species composition. But as these factors even strongly act at the scale of stream types, a further refinement is most probably necessary to disentangle typological actors from water quality ones.     

Integrated assessment of ecological status and misclassification of lakes: The role of uncertainty and index combination rules

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that the ecological status of waterbodies is assessed using multiple biological quality elements (BQEs) that are combined into a single status class. The recommended combination rule (the “one-out, all-out” rule; OOAO) has been criticised for being unreasonably conservative and for being sensitive to uncertainty. In this study, the objective was to compare the sensitivity to uncertainty of four different combination rules: (1) OOAO, (2) OOAO with exclusion of one element, (3) average and (4) weighted average. Index values for 5 BQEs (phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish) sampled from 10 lakes in the Wel River catchment in Poland were used to classify the lakes according to the OOAO and the three alternative combination rules. Based on the mean and (where possible) standard deviation of these index values, we modelled the risk of misclassification by simulating 10,000 resamples for each BQEs in each lake, classifying each resample and calculating the proportion of misclassified resamples under each combination rule. For individual BQEs, the risk of misclassification increased both with higher uncertainty (standard deviation) and with the proximity of the index value to a class boundary. Under the OOAO rule, the risk of misclassification was more biased towards worse status (“underclassification”) than towards better status. Furthermore, risk of underclassification was more affected by uncertainty under the OOAO rule compared with the alternative combination rules. This analysis has demonstrated the weaknesses associated with the OOAO rule for integration of BQEs for lake classification. However, the alternative combination rules are associated with other shortcomings, such as the need for subjective judgement, and involve a higher risk of not protecting the most sensitive BQE and thus the whole ecosystem. We recommend that future versions of instructions for WFD implementation consider alternatives to the OOAO combination rule, and provide guidelines for weighting of individual BQEs.     

Transitional and coastal waters ecological status assessment: advances and challenges resulting from implementing the European Water Framework Directive

The derivation, performance, sensitivity and inherent uncertainty of ecological quality indicators have become major topics in developing tools for the management of marine, transitional and coastal waters. In reviewing the advances in these waters, related to an ecological status assessment, we show the future challenges to be addressed within the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). Using new analyses carried out under the research project ‘Water Bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to Assess Ecological status and Recovery’, we provide a complete set of assessments for the biological quality elements (BQEs) (phytoplankton, macroalgae-seagrasses, macroinvertebrates and fish) to be assessed, as well as the validation of existing indicators and multimetric indices and, in some cases, the development of new assessment indices. We show that these indices respond differently to different human pressures and they each have challenges in defining reference conditions against which future changes are judged. In investigating good ecological potential, as the response to heavily modified water bodies, we show that there are flaws in the Directive, not least in its definitions. Our analyses have also focussed on uncertainty in using the indices and we emphasise the problems of defining ecological class boundaries based on indices which themselves may be combined indices (multimetrics). The analysis shows that some of those multimetrics are redundant and/or are inter-correlated and thus may reduce the sensitivity in defining ecological class boundaries. If this is related to the drivers-pressures-state change-impacts-response approach then there are lessons for management measures aimed at achieving good ecological status and even the potential for legal challenges to decisions based on uncertain indices under the WFD. Hence, we conclude the continued need for advances in assessing pressures and gradients, and defining reference conditions for state change, index development, impact assessment and the validation of indices for each BQE.